Auto Finance News
  • Home
  • News
  • AI Tool
  • Big Wheels Data
    • Big Wheels Overview
    • Dashboard
  • Events
    • Auto Finance Summit
    • Auto Finance Summit East
    • Auto Finance Capital Summit
    • PowerSports Finance Summit
    • Webinar Library
    • Equipment Finance Connect
    • Upcoming Webinar: Funding the Unknown
  • Podcast
  • Features
  • Powersports
  • Subscribe
No Result
View All Result
  • Login
Auto Finance News
  • Home
  • News
  • AI Tool
  • Big Wheels Data
    • Big Wheels Overview
    • Dashboard
  • Events
    • Auto Finance Summit
    • Auto Finance Summit East
    • Auto Finance Capital Summit
    • PowerSports Finance Summit
    • Webinar Library
    • Equipment Finance Connect
    • Upcoming Webinar: Funding the Unknown
  • Podcast
  • Features
  • Powersports
  • Subscribe
  • Login
No Result
View All Result
Auto Finance News
No Result
View All Result

CFPB: ‘Junk fees’ in auto servicing are unfair, deceptive

Kelly Lipinski and Jim Sandy, McGlincheybyKelly Lipinski and Jim Sandy, McGlinchey
March 31, 2023
in Compliance
Reading Time: 6 mins read

Continuing its aggressive push of investigating and regulating so-called junk fees charged by banks and financial companies, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) recently issued a special edition of its Supervisory Highlights, which outlines such fees it uncovered in various industries, including auto servicing. According to the bureau, during various auto servicing examinations it uncovered numerous Unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts and practices (UDAAP) issues related to fees charged by auto servicing companies. These include: 

  • Overcharging late fees; 
  • Charging unauthorized late fees after repossession and acceleration of the contract; 
  • Charging estimated repossession fees that are much higher than average repossession costs; and 
  • Charging “unfair and abusive” payment fees. 

Auto servicing companies should take note of these findings by the bureau as well as the redress ordered by the CFPB. 

Photographer: Samuel Corum/Bloomberg

Overcharging late fees 

According to the bureau, it uncovered numerous instances of servicers charging consumers late fees more than the amount authorized by the consumer’s contract. For instance, the CFPB noted that, in at least one instance, a servicer coded their system to reflect a systemwide late-fee amount of $25, even though many of the consumers’ contracts capped the late fee amount to 5% of the monthly payment amount. 

While not clear how or why this would be considered a junk fee, the bureau nonetheless made clear that such acts were unfair and/or deceptive and that the companies involved were required to cease this practice and refund the late fee overcharges to all impacted consumers.  

The takeaway: Auto servicing companies will want to ensure that any late fees they charge comply with the terms of the consumers’ contracts. A one-size-fits-all approach will not suffice. 

Charging unauthorized late fees post-repossession and acceleration 

Somewhat similarly, the bureau’s investigations also uncovered instances where a servicer charged a consumer a late fee even after the contract had been accelerated.  

According to the bureau, once a contract was accelerated, “the entire remaining loan balance became immediately due and payable, thus terminating consumers’ contractual obligation to make further periodic payments and eliminating the servicers’ contractual right to charge late fees on such periodic payments.”  

Despite this, the CFPB found instances where a servicer continued to charge late fees post-acceleration and consumers paid the fees to redeem the vehicle.  

According to the bureau, this too could be considered unfair and/or deceptive. As a result of the bureau’s examinations, these companies agreed to cease this practice and refund the fees to consumers.  

The takeaway: According to the CFPB, late fees post-repossession and acceleration are not permitted. As such, servicers should focus on ruling policies and procedures to ensure such fees are not added to the consumer’s balance once the contract has been accelerated and/or the vehicle has been repossessed. 

Charging estimated repossession costs 

The bureau also found that the practice of charging an estimated repossession cost significantly higher than the actual repossession cost to be an unfair act or practice, notwithstanding the servicer’s reimbursement of the excess amounts after receiving the invoice from the repossession agent.  

While some might consider such a practice to be “no harm, no foul,” the bureau disagreed, noting: “For consumers who paid the amount demanded, deprivation of these funds for even a short period constituted substantial injury. Furthermore, some consumers may have been dissuaded from recovering their vehicles because the servicers represented that consumers must pay a $1,000 estimated repossession fee in addition to other amounts due.  

“Some consumers may have been able to afford a $350 fee but not a $1,000 fee, and therefore did not pay and permanently lost access to their vehicles.” 

The bureau’s supervising activities likewise required cessation of these actions and refunds to the impacted consumers. 

The takeaway: Servicers should charge consumers for the actual amount of repossession costs incurred, not an estimated cost as even reimbursement of the difference might not suffice to avoid an action by the CFPB or a state attorney general. If a servicer’s practice is to charge consumers an estimated fee before repossession expenses are finalized, the servicer should consider periodically comparing actual and estimated fees and making adjustments so the two are proportional. 

Unfair and abusive payment fees 

Finally, the CFPB highlighted what it considered to be unfair and abusive payment fees in auto servicing, a practice that the CFPB has previously highlighted in other situations and industries. This is the practice of charging and profiting from payment processing fees that “far exceeded the servicer’s costs for processing payments after the consumer was locked into a relationship with a servicer chosen by the dealer.” The bureau also faulted servicers for only offering a handful of free payment options, noting that the consumer had no say in the payment methods offered (and was a captive user); nor could the consumer bargain over such fees or switch to a cheaper service provider. The bureau ordered the servicers to cease such practices. 

The takeaway: Servicers should consider whether processing fees are proportional to the cost for processing such payments. They should also consider whether they have the consumer’s consent to charge such fees before doing so, and whether the consumer has been offered sufficient alternative (and free) payment options.

Jim Sandy is a Member (Partner) at McGlinchey, where he advises clients in cases involving federal and state regulatory matters, arbitrations, consumer complaints filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and state and federal lawsuits.

Kelly Lipinski is a Member (Partner) in McGlinchey’s Cleveland office. She practices in the firm’s Consumer Financial Services regulatory and compliance group. 

Auto Finance Summit East, Auto Finance News’ new spring event, is set for May 10-12 at the JW Marriott Nashville featuring a fireside chat with Peter Muriungi, CEO of Chase Auto. Visit autofinance.live. 

Tags: Bureau of Consumer Financial ProtectionCFPBCompliance InsiderfeesUDAAP
Previous Post

Fed-favored inflation gauge rises by less than forecast, spending moderates

Next Post

Economy No. 1 threat to banking industry, consumer bankers say

Related Posts

Used vehicles for sale at a dealership in Colma, California, US, on Friday, June 21, 2024. CDK Global, a software provider to some 15,000 car dealers, was waylaid by debilitating cyberattacks this week that have had a crippling effect on the auto sales industry. Photographer: David Paul Morris/Bloomberg
Compliance

FTC names 97 dealership groups that received pricing warning letters 

May 29, 2026
Cars on a busy highway
Capital & Funding

Potential disclosure regulation reform could heighten enforcement risk for ABS issuers 

April 29, 2026

sponsored by InformedIQ

Subscribe to Our Newsletters

PowerSports Finance - Monthly coverage of the powersports lending market

SPONSORED

Why credit unions give dealers an edge in today’s auto market

Why credit unions give dealers an edge in today’s auto market

April 28, 2026
Driving better decision-making across auto finance operations with SAS

Driving better decision-making across auto finance operations with SAS

March 10, 2026
Auto finance’s first line of defense: Raising the standard in integrated software partnerships and data strategy

Auto finance’s first line of defense: Raising the standard in integrated software partnerships and data strategy

February 5, 2026
Next Post
RBS cuts London asset-backed, CLO team on Zoom call

Economy No. 1 threat to banking industry, consumer bankers say

ABOUT US

HELP CENTER

ADVERTISE

PRIVACY TERMS

ADA COMPLIANCE

CODE OF JOURNALISM ETHICS

[wt_cli_manage_consent]

EXECUTIVES OF THE YEAR

AUTO FINANCE EXCELLENCE AWARDS

MAGAZINE ARCHIVE

INDUSTRY GLOSSARY

facebook linkedin twitter podcast podcast

© 2025 Royal Media Group

Ok

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • News
    • All News
    • Capital & Funding
    • EVs
    • Technology
    • Management
    • Powersports Finance News
    • Risk Management
    • Sales & Marketing
  • Events
    • Auto Finance Summit East
    • Equipment Finance Connect
    • Auto Finance Summit
    • PowerSports Finance Summit
  • Features
    • Latest Issue
    • Features
    • New Tracks
    • Car Culture
    • Staffing Shuffles
    • Under The Hood
    • Spotlight
    • Issue Archive
  • Podcast
  • Big Wheels Data
    • Big Wheels Overview
    • Dashboard
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • Log In / Account

© 2025 Royal Media Group